Re: DRAFT agenda for the regular Process Call Wednesday 14th August 7am PDT

On 8/27/2019 2:32 PM, David Singer wrote:
>
>
> Webex at <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/internal-w3process/2019May/0000.html>
>
> IRC is #w3process
>
> Log of prior meeting at <https://www.w3.org/2019/08/14-w3process-minutes.html>
>
>
> Usual meeting time: SECOND and FOURTH WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH AT 7AM PACIFIC
>
>
> I realize we might not get beyond agenda #3, but…
>
> 4 is the 2020 Milestone.  At some point we’ll have to admit we missed the milestone and decide what to do.
> 5 is new issues; one day we should triage newly arrived issues, and newly updated issues.
> 6 is stuff we assigned to someone, and at some point we might like to admit we got the wrong victim
>
>
>
> 1) Assign scribe, etc.,
>
> 2) Preparing to present Process status at TPAC (not yet for approval):
>  (20 minute session on Thursday, David S supported by Florian R, Process2020 including Registries)
>
>  It would be good to have a one/two slide summary of what else we’ve done (other than struggle with Evergreen and Registries).
>
>  David to give an update on the offline conversation with Elika and Florian, decide next steps

There is also a 40 minute session on Thursday of TPAC week about 
Continuous spec development (fantasai, PLH).

I think the Process CG deserves an update on the general flow:

  * General outline of Continuous spec development presentation
  * Relationship to AC poll on the patent policy
  * Progress on stakeholder check-in

>
> 3) Editorials, and (Other) Pull Requests and Issues tagged Agenda+
>
> 3.1) Pull Requests: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3AAgenda%2B>
> — none as of time of writing the agenda
>     (There are 7 other Pull Requests <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pulls>)
>
> 3.2) Issues:   <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3AAgenda%2B+>
> One is Ever* and the other is editorial, noted below
>
> #271 Does the decision to allow the Evergreen state need to be made in the Charter? <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/271>
>
> 3.3) Editorial (same two as last call):
> — decide whether to address or close (PLH action):
> #262 What does the document status "discontinued" mean? <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/262>
>
> — Chris Wilson assigned at last call:
> #141 provide clearer/common wording for transitions to Obsolete/Superseded status <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/141>
>
> (no other editorial updates exist at time of agenda creation):
> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/labels/Type%3A%20editorial%20improvements>
>
>
> 4) Review of 2020 milestone; who has the action, where are we going, what’s next? Do we expect/hope/intend to finish these in P2020 or should we start slipping them?
>
> 4.1) assigned to someone, please be prepared to give any needed updates (briefly), or if you are blocked by something, explain what it is so we can unblock you:
> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22+assignee%3A*>
>
> Florian:
>  CR change documentation requirement should be for substantive changes only #307 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/307>
>  TAG appointment should be via IETF style nomcom #230 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/230>
>  Define charter review process to require addressing comments as in CR transitions #182 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/182>
>  Substantive changes undefined for Charter and Process reviews #28 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/28>
>  Add note to Process about flexibility of consensus #296 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/296>
>
> Wendy, Ralph, Leonie:
>  Enumerate the requirements for wide review #130 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/130>
>
> David
>  Process supporting "Living Standards"? (Evergreen) #79 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/79>
>  We need a process for handling registries, APIs and other 'enumerations' #168 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/168>
>
> 4.2) unassigned; we should probably admit we missed the milestone:
>
>  <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22+no%3Aassignee>
>
>  Should the process include something about Testing? #157 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/157>
>  define "independent" #167 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/167>
>  process should clarify how Superseded state interacts with other maintenance processes (e.g., new versions, edited/amended recommendations) #183
>    <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/183>
>
>
> 5) new issues and updates.
>
> 5.1) new since prior check: <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+created%3A%3E2019-03-13+>
> There are 52; I don’t intend to list them here.
>
> If we reduce to those not either (a) evergreen or (b) director-free, we have 4:
>  <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+created%3A%3E2019-03-13+-label%3AEvergreen+-label%3Adirector-free+>
> #307 is above
> #296 is above
> #262 is above
>
> #264 Suggesting a change to horizontal reviews in the Process <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/264>
> — Leonie suggests we close in favor of #130 Enumerate the requirements for wide review <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/130>
>
> 5.2) updated but not any of:
>  Process2020 milestone
>  nor Evergreen
>  nor director-free <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+updated%3A%3E2019-05-22+-milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22+-label%3AEvergreen+-label%3Adirector-free>
>
> There are 6:
> #141 and #262 are above
>
> Clarify the voting process #60 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/60>
>  (the famous sentence; we have an inconsistent process document, which I find acutely embarrassing)
> We need to consider equal-preference voting #115 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/115>
>  (probably sitting with the AB)
>
> Allow AB to choose its own chair #223 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/223>
>  — propose we leave with the AB for now, and await their instructions
>
> First meeting of a WG allowed too soon #251 <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/251>
>  — I think we should summarize the considerations here and ask the AC to comment on this issue; can we find something fair, reasonable, and workable?
>
> 6) If we have time, Assigned, but not on the 2020 milestone
>
> <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aopen+assignee%3A*+-milestone%3A%22Process+2020%22>)
> #223, #262 above
>
> Florian:
>  #299 Make it clear than any decision can be objected to <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/299>
>  #260 Further automating transition requests <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/260>
>  #254 [director-free] Gratuitous mentions of the Director <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/254>
>  #281 objecting to chair appointments <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/281>
>  #299 Make it clear than any decision can be objected to <https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/299>
>
> The usual closers:
>
> 7) Next meeting. formally Wed Sept 11th
>
> 8) Any other business.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> David Singer
> Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
>